Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State And Ors vs Hingole Khan And Anr. ... on 8 January, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:1202]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14193/2016
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Public Health And
Engineering Department, Jaipur
2. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health And
Engineering Department, Circle Jaisalmer
3. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering
Department, Rural Division Jaisalmer
4. The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering
Department, City Divison Jaisalmer
5. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering
Department, Rural Sub Division Jaisalmer
6. The Assistant Engineer, Public Health And Engineering
Department, City Sub Division Jaisalmer
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Hingole Khan S/o Hasan Khan Through Vinod Purohit,
Labour Consultant Mazdoor Sangh 18/716 Choopasani
Housing Board, Jodhpur
2. Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. PS Chundawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. RS Champawat
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
08/01/2025
1. The matter comes up for considering the application filed
under section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Mr. PS
Chundawat, learned counsel for the State submitted that he has
instructions to argue the matter and/or settle the case amicably.
2. The order impugned in the present writ petition filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, a judgment and award
[2025:RJ-JD:1202] (2 of 3) [CW-14193/2016]
dated 12.07.2016, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court').
3. The precise facts which are necessary for the present
purposes are that a reference came to be made to the learned
Labour Court at the instance of the respondent, who claimed that
he having worked as a daily wager with the petitioners for the
period between 01.08.1985 to 31.12.1989, has been retrenched
by an oral order without complying with the provisions of section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Act of 1947"). Said reference came to be answered by the
learned Labour Court in favour of respondent-workman by award
dated 12.07.2016.
4. Mr. Chundawat, learned counsel for the petitioners invited
Court's attention towards the factual matrix of the case and
argued that the respondent No.1 was not illegally retrenched
rather he voluntarily absented himself from work. He also argued
that the dispute was raised with an inordinate delay.
5. Though the award of Labour Court has been challenged by
the petitioners on merit, but, in the changed circumstances, Mr.
Chundawat, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitioners are willing to pay a lump-sum compensation to the
respondent-workman in lieu of reinstatement.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
7. Mr. RS Champawat, learned counsel for the respondent-
workman on instructions submitted that the respondent-workman
is amenable to petitioners' proposition and a lump-sum
compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- be awarded with which
[2025:RJ-JD:1202] (3 of 3) [CW-14193/2016]
his client would be satisfied as he does not feel inclined to work at
this matured age.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case
B.S.N.L. Vs. Bhurumal decided on 11.12.2013 reported in AIR
2014 SCW 258 and submitted that respondent-workman be paid
at least Rs.5 lacs as a lump-sum compensation having regard
to inflation (because in the year 2013, Hon'ble the Supreme Court
has awarded lump sum compensation of Rs.3 lacs).
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
considering the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered
in the case of B.S.N.L (supra) and considering that the parties are
ready to give a quietus to the issue and further bearing in mind
the inflation and present cost of living, this Court is of the view
that interest of justice will be met if a compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- is paid to the respondent-workman.
10. The award dated 12.07.2016 is, thus accordingly modified.
The respondent-workman is held entitled to get a lump-sum
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- instead of reinstatement.
11. The amount be paid within a period of three months from
today. In case of default, the same shall carry interest @ 8% per
annum from the date of the order instant.
12. The writ petition so also all interlocutory applications,
including stay application stand disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
117-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
